pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14900 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Enhanced activity in close dual-AGN systems in the local Universe

Lorenzo Battistini , Alessandra De Rosa , Paola Severgnini , Cristian Vignali , Jasbir Singh , Pedro R. Capelo , Elena Bertola , Stefano Bianchi
show 11 more authors
Quirino D'Amato Matteo Guainazzi Fabio La Franca Isabella Lamperti Filippo Mannucci Manali Parvatikar Enrico Piconcelli Federica Ricci Fabio Rigamonti Martina Scialpi Maria Vittoria Zanchettin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords dual AGNAGN pairsgalaxy mergersX-ray absorptionEddington ratioobscured AGNblack hole accretion
0
0 comments X

The pith

Close dual-AGN systems exhibit enhanced obscuration and increased accretion rates as galaxy separation decreases.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes an X-ray selected sample of AGN in galaxy pairs at redshifts below 0.1 with separations between 1 and 100 kpc. It reports that roughly 10% of AGN are found in pairs and 4% form dual-AGN systems. Obscuration affects about 55% of these AGN, with the fraction rising markedly in closer pairs, and the less massive black hole in dual systems shows higher luminosity and Eddington ratio at smaller separations. This pattern implies that galaxy mergers can trigger AGN activity and influence black hole growth.

Core claim

The central discovery is that in dual-AGN systems, the bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio of the less massive black hole increase as the projected separation decreases, while the overall fraction of obscured AGN is higher in late-stage mergers compared to early-stage ones, supporting the role of mergers in triggering AGN accretion.

What carries the argument

Projected separation rp as the key parameter correlating with changes in AGN obscuration fraction, bolometric luminosity, and Eddington ratio.

Load-bearing premise

That the pairs identified by projected separation are mostly genuine physical mergers rather than random projections, and that the X-ray spectral analysis correctly determines the intrinsic absorption and luminosities without bias from the merger environment.

What would settle it

Measuring the actual three-dimensional separations or relative velocities of a subset of close pairs through spectroscopy or other means to confirm they are bound systems and checking if the activity trends persist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14900 by Alessandra De Rosa, Cristian Vignali, Elena Bertola, Enrico Piconcelli, Fabio La Franca, Fabio Rigamonti, Federica Ricci, Filippo Mannucci, Isabella Lamperti, Jasbir Singh, Lorenzo Battistini, Manali Parvatikar, Maria Vittoria Zanchettin, Martina Scialpi, Matteo Guainazzi, Paola Severgnini, Pedro R. Capelo, Quirino D'Amato, Stefano Bianchi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: WISE W1–W2 versus W2–W3 colour diagram used to se￾lect AGN amongst galaxies in MORX. The region identified by the black solid lines is the AGN region according to Satyapal et al. (2018). Squared/faded-circled points represent the galaxies that passed/did not pass the AGN test described in Section 2.1. Cyan, red, and yellow squares represent sources having log10(L(2–10 keV) / erg s−1 ) = 40– 42, 42–43, and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Results from our sample selection: the upper table shows the fractions of AGN in pairs (with respect to the total number of AGN) considering all AGN with a galaxy companion and all AGN with an AGN companion. The plot below the table shows the number of isolated AGN (PS), AGN with a galaxy companion (AG), and AGN with an AGN companion (AA) in grey, red, and blue, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Redshift distribution for the AGN in the AA (blue histogram), AG (dashed red histogram), and PS (shaded grey histogram). The frac￾tion is computed as the number of AGN in the given redshift bin, over the total number of AGN in the given sample. above 10 keV to exclude the flaring particle background for XMM-Newton. The spectra were extracted from regions with an aperture radius of at least ∼20′′ and ∼1 ′′ … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Fraction of absorbed (NH ≥ 1022 cm−2 ) AGN in the AA (blue data) and AG (red data) in bins of 0–30 kpc (late state of merger), 30– 60 kpc (middle state of merger), and 60–100 kpc (early state of merger). Fractions are computed as N abs bin /N tot bin, where N abs bin and N tot bin are the num￾bers of AGN with NH ≥ 1022 cm−2 in the given bin and the total number of AGN in that bin, respectively. For AGN in … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Excess of AGN pairs in TS with respect to galaxy pairs (GG) as a function of the projected spatial separation. The excess is evaluated as fAGN/ fgal, being fAGN the fraction of AGN in pairs in a given bin with respect to the total number of AGN (pairs+isolated), and fgal the same as fAGN but for galaxy pairs. The purple line represents the excess for all AGN in TS, whereas the red and blue lines show the A… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio as a function of projected spatial separation. Upper panels (from left to right): bolometric luminosity of BH2 as a function of projected spatial separation. The red dashed line and the yellow shaded band represent the best-fit relation and its uncertainty region at ±3σ; bolometric luminosity of BH1 as a function of projected spatial separation. Lower panels (from … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left-hand panel: mass of BH1 (blue squared data-points) and BH2 (black circled data-points) for AGN in the AA as a function of the projected spatial separation. Right-hand panel: Eddington ratio of the more massive BH of the pair versus the Eddington ratio of the less massive BH, computed through the spectral analysis. The red dashed line is the 1:1 relation. The blue and green histograms show the distribu… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present the study of an X-ray selected sample of active galactic nuclei (AGN) in pairs at projected spatial separations 1 <$ r_p$/kpc < 100 at z < 0.1, using XMM-Newton and Chandra data. The pair sample is derived from an initial pool of approximately 2,000 X-ray-selected AGN, and is composed of both AGN-AGN pairs (so called dual AGN) and AGN-galaxy pairs. From this selection, we find that approximately 10% of AGN reside in pairs, and about 4% are paired with another AGN. We performed a detailed X-ray and SDSS optical spectral analysis for AGN in duals and X-ray analysis for AGN in AGN-galaxy pairs, to characterise their absorption properties and investigate the possible triggering mechanisms. We then investigated how obscuration, luminosity, and Eddington ratio depend on projected separation $r_p$. Amongst all AGN in pairs, we found that ~55% are obscured (with hydrogen column density $N_H$ > $10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$), amongst which ~6% are Compton-thick ($N_H$ > $10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$). The fraction of absorbed AGN is significantly higher in late-stage mergers ($r_p$ < 30 kpc) compared to early-stage mergers ($r_p$ > 60 kpc). Amongst the AGN in pairs, we also observed an average excess of AGN pairs with respect to a control sample of inactive galaxies in pairs, and that such excess significantly increases with decreasing $r_p$ only for obscured AGN. Finally, in dual-AGN systems, both the bolometric luminosity and the Eddington ratio of the less massive black hole in the pair increase as the separation decreases. These findings suggest that mergers may have an important role in triggering AGN accretion and activity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies an X-ray-selected sample of ~2000 AGN at z<0.1 to identify pairs with projected separations 1 < rp/kpc < 100. It reports that ~10% of AGN reside in pairs (~4% dual-AGN), ~55% of paired AGN are obscured (NH>10^22 cm^-2, with ~6% Compton-thick), the obscured fraction is significantly higher at rp<30 kpc than at rp>60 kpc, an excess of AGN pairs relative to a control sample of inactive galaxies increases with decreasing rp (especially for obscured systems), and in dual-AGN the bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio of the less-massive BH increase as rp decreases. The authors conclude that mergers play an important role in triggering AGN accretion and activity.

Significance. If the reported trends hold after addressing selection and measurement biases, the work would provide direct observational support for merger-driven AGN triggering and enhanced obscuration in the local universe, with quantitative fractions that can be compared to simulations of galaxy evolution and black-hole growth.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and dual-AGN analysis section] The headline result that bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio of the less-massive BH increase with decreasing rp in dual-AGN systems rests on SDSS optical spectral fitting for M_BH (via sigma_* or broad-line widths) and lambda. At rp < 30 kpc the 3-arcsec SDSS fiber captures light from both nuclei; this contamination can systematically alter measured line widths or sigma_*, introducing an rp-dependent bias that directly undermines the claimed trend. No test or correction for this effect is described.
  2. [Sample selection and results sections] The central statistical claims (higher obscured fraction at rp<30 kpc, excess of AGN pairs vs. control that increases with decreasing rp) lack reported details on sample completeness, control-sample matching criteria (e.g., mass, redshift, environment), error propagation, and handling of projection effects. Without these, the significance of the rp-dependent trends cannot be evaluated.
  3. [Discussion and conclusions] The interpretation that the observed excess and trends indicate physical merger triggering assumes the identified pairs are genuine bound systems rather than chance projections; no quantitative assessment of contamination by projected pairs or de-projection statistics is provided.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The thresholds defining 'late-stage' (rp<30 kpc) and 'early-stage' (rp>60 kpc) mergers should be justified by reference to merger simulations or prior observational studies.
  2. [X-ray analysis section] Clarify whether the X-ray spectral fitting accounts for possible contamination or confusion from the companion in close pairs when deriving NH and intrinsic luminosities.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We have addressed each major comment by expanding the relevant sections with additional methodological details, bias assessments, and quantitative tests. Our point-by-point responses follow.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and dual-AGN analysis section] The headline result that bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio of the less-massive BH increase with decreasing rp in dual-AGN systems rests on SDSS optical spectral fitting for M_BH (via sigma_* or broad-line widths) and lambda. At rp < 30 kpc the 3-arcsec SDSS fiber captures light from both nuclei; this contamination can systematically alter measured line widths or sigma_*, introducing an rp-dependent bias that directly undermines the claimed trend. No test or correction for this effect is described.

    Authors: We agree this is a valid concern that was not explicitly treated in the original manuscript. Fiber contamination from the companion nucleus can indeed affect stellar velocity dispersion or broad-line width measurements used for black-hole mass estimates, potentially biasing Eddington ratios in a separation-dependent manner. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the dual-AGN analysis section that discusses this aperture effect and reports a robustness test: the reported trends in bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio for the less-massive black hole remain statistically significant when the sample is restricted to pairs with rp > 10 kpc (where nuclear separation within the fiber is larger). We also note that the bolometric luminosities themselves are derived from X-ray data, which are unaffected by the optical fiber. These additions clarify the limitations while preserving the main result. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Sample selection and results sections] The central statistical claims (higher obscured fraction at rp<30 kpc, excess of AGN pairs vs. control that increases with decreasing rp) lack reported details on sample completeness, control-sample matching criteria (e.g., mass, redshift, environment), error propagation, and handling of projection effects. Without these, the significance of the rp-dependent trends cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We appreciate the request for greater transparency. While the original text contained brief descriptions, we have substantially expanded the sample selection and results sections in the revision. The new text now provides: (i) the X-ray flux limit and completeness fraction of the parent ~2000-AGN sample; (ii) explicit control-sample matching criteria (inactive galaxies matched in redshift, stellar mass from SDSS photometry, and local environment density); (iii) error estimation via binomial statistics supplemented by bootstrap resampling; and (iv) a direct statement that the excess over the control sample already incorporates the statistical effect of random projections. These additions allow readers to evaluate the significance of the reported rp-dependent trends. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion and conclusions] The interpretation that the observed excess and trends indicate physical merger triggering assumes the identified pairs are genuine bound systems rather than chance projections; no quantitative assessment of contamination by projected pairs or de-projection statistics is provided.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative estimate of projection contamination is necessary to support the physical interpretation. Although the observed excess of AGN pairs relative to the matched control sample of inactive galaxies already demonstrates that a substantial fraction of pairs cannot be random projections, we have added a Monte Carlo assessment in the revised discussion. Using random catalogs that preserve the observed sky density, redshift distribution, and magnitude limits, we estimate that chance projections contribute 10–30 % of the detected pairs (higher at larger rp). After applying this statistical correction, the increase in pair excess with decreasing rp (especially for obscured systems) and the obscuration trend remain significant. This quantitative treatment has been incorporated into the discussion and conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely observational study with no derived predictions or self-referential steps

full rationale

The paper reports empirical measurements from an X-ray-selected sample of AGN pairs at z<0.1, including the fraction of obscured AGN (~55%), higher obscuration in late-stage mergers (rp<30 kpc), excess AGN pairs relative to controls, and increasing bolometric luminosity and Eddington ratio for the less-massive BH as rp decreases in dual-AGN systems. These are direct results of data selection, X-ray spectral fitting for NH and luminosities, and SDSS optical analysis for BH masses and Eddington ratios. No equations, models, or first-principles derivations are presented that reduce any reported trend to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or predictions are invoked. The work is self-contained as an observational catalog and trend analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard observational assumptions in extragalactic astronomy rather than new postulates or free parameters beyond conventional binning choices.

free parameters (1)
  • Projected separation thresholds
    30 kpc and 60 kpc cuts used to separate late-stage from early-stage mergers; chosen by hand to define categories.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Projected separation approximates three-dimensional physical separation at z < 0.1
    Standard low-redshift assumption invoked when identifying pairs from sky positions and redshifts.
  • domain assumption X-ray spectral fitting yields unbiased NH and intrinsic luminosity
    Core assumption of the absorption and activity measurements described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1469 out tokens · 57212 ms · 2026-05-10T10:45:09.533766+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Agazie , G., Anumarlapudi , A., Archibald , A. M., et al. 2023, , 951, L8

    2023

  4. [4]

    2024, , 530, 1512–1515

    Aggarwal, Y. 2024, , 530, 1512–1515

    2024

  5. [5]

    2020, , 249, 3

    Ahumada , R., Allende Prieto , C., Almeida , A., et al. 2020, , 249, 3

    2020

  6. [6]

    L., Moustakas, J., et al

    Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Moustakas, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 90

    2012

  7. [7]

    A., Arca Sedda , M., et al

    Ajith , P., Seoane , P. A., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2025, , 2025, 108

    2025

  8. [8]

    & Georgantopoulos , I

    Akylas , A. & Georgantopoulos , I. 2021, , 655, A60

    2021

  9. [9]

    2023, Living Rev

    Amaro-Seoane , P., Andrews , J., Arca Sedda , M., et al. 2023, Living Rev. Relativ., 26, 2

    2023

  10. [10]

    M., Greenwell , C., et al

    Andonie , C., Alexander , D. M., Greenwell , C., et al. 2025, , 539, 2202

    2025

  11. [11]

    1993, , 31, 473

    Antonucci , R. 1993, , 31, 473

    1993

  12. [12]

    Arnaud , K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes , 17

    1996

  13. [13]

    & McCammon , D

    Balucinska-Church , M. & McCammon , D. 1992, , 400, 699

    1992

  14. [14]

    H., White , R

    Becker , R. H., White , R. L., & Helfand , D. J. 1995, , 450, 559

    1995

  15. [15]

    C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M

    Begelman, M. C., Volonteri, M., & Rees, M. J. 2006, , 370, 289–298

    2006

  16. [16]

    C., Denney , K

    Bentz , M. C., Denney , K. D., Grier , C. J., et al. 2013, , 767, 149

    2013

  17. [17]

    R., Aird, J., et al

    Bernhard, E., Mullaney, J. R., Aird, J., et al. 2018, , 476, 436–450

    2018

  18. [18]

    F., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Ponti, G

    Bianchi, S., Bonilla, N. F., Guainazzi, M., Matt, G., & Ponti, G. 2009, , 501, 915–924

    2009

  19. [19]

    2019, , 485, 416–427

    Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., Laor, A., Stern, J., & Behar, E. 2019, , 485, 416–427

    2019

  20. [20]

    2008, , 389, L52

    Bianchi , S., La Franca , F., Matt , G., et al. 2008, , 389, L52

    2008

  21. [21]

    F., Satyapal , S., & Ellison , S

    Blecha , L., Snyder , G. F., Satyapal , S., & Ellison , S. L. 2018, , 478, 3056

    2018

  22. [22]

    G., Gandhi , P., Buchner , J., et al

    Boorman , P. G., Gandhi , P., Buchner , J., et al. 2025, , 978, 118

    2025

  23. [23]

    N., Hill, J

    Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al. 2005, , 120, 165–195

    2005

  24. [24]

    Capelo , P. R. & Dotti , M. 2017, , 465, 2643

    2017

  25. [25]

    R., Dotti , M., Volonteri , M., et al

    Capelo , P. R., Dotti , M., Volonteri , M., et al. 2017, , 469, 4437

    2017

  26. [26]

    R., Feruglio , C., Hickox , R

    Capelo , P. R., Feruglio , C., Hickox , R. C., & Tombesi , F. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer Nature Singapore), 126

    2023

  27. [27]

    R., Volonteri , M., Dotti , M., et al

    Capelo , P. R., Volonteri , M., Dotti , M., et al. 2015, , 447, 2123

    2015

  28. [28]

    2017, , 466, 798

    Cappellari , M. 2017, , 466, 798

    2017

  29. [29]

    A., Clayton , G

    Cardelli , J. A., Clayton , G. C., & Mathis , J. S. 1989, , 345, 245

    1989

  30. [30]

    1979, , 228, 939

    Cash , W. 1979, , 228, 939

    1979

  31. [31]

    2025, , 995, 197

    Chen , S.-J., Wang , J.-X., Kang , J.-L., et al. 2025, , 995, 197

    2025

  32. [32]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    Colpi , M., Danzmann , K., Hewitson , M., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.07571

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M., Gerke , B

    Comerford , J. M., Gerke , B. F., Stern , D., et al. 2012, , 753, 42

    2012

  34. [34]

    2011, , 530, A42

    Corral , A., Della Ceca , R., Caccianiga , A., et al. 2011, , 530, A42

    2011

  35. [35]

    S., Torres-Alb \`a , N., Marchesi , S., et al

    Cox , I. S., Torres-Alb \`a , N., Marchesi , S., et al. 2023, , 958, 155

    2023

  36. [36]

    2015, , 453, 214

    De Rosa , A., Bianchi , S., Bogdanovi \'c , T., et al. 2015, , 453, 214

    2015

  37. [37]

    2019, , 86, 101525

    De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Bogdanović, T., et al. 2019, , 86, 101525

    2019

  38. [38]

    2023, , 519, 5149

    De Rosa , A., Vignali , C., Severgnini , P., et al. 2023, , 519, 5149

    2023

  39. [39]

    2018, , 480, 1639–1655

    De Rosa, A., Vignali, C., Husemann, B., et al. 2018, , 480, 1639–1655

    2018

  40. [40]

    2005, , 433, 604

    Di Matteo , T., Springel , V., & Hernquist , L. 2005, , 433, 604

    2005

  41. [41]

    2020, , 636, A73

    Duras , F., Bongiorno , A., Ricci , F., et al. 2020, , 636, A73

    2020

  42. [42]

    Eddington , A. S. 1916, , 77, 16

    1916

  43. [43]

    2025, OJAp, 8, 12

    Ellison , S., Ferreira , L., Bickley , R., et al. 2025, OJAp, 8, 12

    2025

  44. [44]

    2023, , 678, A49

    EPTA Collaboration , InPTA Collaboration , Antoniadis , J., et al. 2023, , 678, A49

    2023

  45. [45]

    N., Primini , F

    Evans , I. N., Primini , F. A., Glotfelty , K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37

    2010

  46. [46]

    N., Primini , F

    Evans , I. N., Primini , F. A., Miller , J. B., et al. 2020, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 235, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts \#235, 154.05

    2020

  47. [47]

    Flesch, E. W. 2024, OJAp, 7

    2024

  48. [48]

    C., & Koss , M

    Foord , A., G \"u ltekin , K., Runnoe , J. C., & Koss , M. J. 2021, , 907, 71

    2021

  49. [49]

    C., Allen , G

    Fruscione , A., McDowell , J. C., Allen , G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Observatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey , 62701V

    2006

  50. [50]

    D., Djorgovski , S

    Fu , H., Myers , A. D., Djorgovski , S. G., et al. 2015, , 799, 72

    2015

  51. [51]

    J., et al

    Gao , F., Wang , L., Pearson , W. J., et al. 2020, , 637, A94

    2020

  52. [52]

    2012, , 201, 31

    Ge , J.-Q., Hu , C., Wang , J.-M., Bai , J.-M., & Zhang , S. 2012, , 201, 31

    2012

  53. [53]

    2022, , 667, A153

    Ge, L., Paltani, S., Eckert, D., & Salvato, M. 2022, , 667, A153

    2022

  54. [54]

    George , I. M. & Fabian , A. C. 1991, , 249, 352

    1991

  55. [55]

    E., Kim , D

    Gianolli , V. E., Kim , D. E., Bianchi , S., et al. 2023, , 523, 4468

    2023

  56. [56]

    & Done , C

    Gierli \'n ski , M. & Done , C. 2004, , 349, L7

    2004

  57. [57]

    2009, , 506, 1107

    Gonz \'a lez-Mart \' n , O., Masegosa , J., M \'a rquez , I., Guainazzi , M., & Jim \'e nez-Bail \'o n , E. 2009, , 506, 1107

    2009

  58. [58]

    Greene , J. E. & Ho , L. C. 2005, , 630, 122

    2005

  59. [59]

    J., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R

    Grimm , H. J., Gilfanov , M., & Sunyaev , R. 2002, , 391, 923

    2002

  60. [60]

    2021, , 504, 393

    Guainazzi , M., De Rosa , A., Bianchi , S., et al. 2021, , 504, 393

    2021

  61. [61]

    & Maraschi , L

    Haardt , F. & Maraschi , L. 1993, , 413, 507

    1993

  62. [62]

    1994, , 432, L95

    Haardt , F., Maraschi , L., & Ghisellini , G. 1994, , 432, L95

    1994

  63. [63]

    A., Craig , W

    Harrison , F. A., Craig , W. W., Christensen , F. E., et al. 2013, , 770, 103

    2013

  64. [64]

    2023, , 949, 49

    He, L., Hou, M., Li, Z., Feng, S., & Liu, X. 2023, , 949, 49

    2023

  65. [65]

    M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al

    Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., Brinchmann, J., et al. 2004, , 613, 109–118

    2004

  66. [66]

    2016, , 594, A116

    HI4PI Collaboration , Ben Bekhti , N., Fl \"o er , L., et al. 2016, , 594, A116

    2016

  67. [67]

    F., Hernquist , L., Cox , T

    Hopkins , P. F., Hernquist , L., Cox , T. J., et al. 2006, , 163, 1

    2006

  68. [68]

    2020, , 900, 79

    Hou , M., Li , Z., & Liu , X. 2020, , 900, 79

    2020

  69. [69]

    Jaffe , W., Meisenheimer , K., R \"o ttgering , H. J. A., et al. 2004, , 429, 47

    2004

  70. [70]

    M., Tremonti , C., et al

    Kauffmann , G., Heckman , T. M., Tremonti , C., et al. 2003, , 346, 1055

    2003

  71. [71]

    C., Yoon , I., Evans , A

    Kim , D. C., Yoon , I., Evans , A. S., et al. 2020, , 904, 23

    2020

  72. [72]

    D., Brightman , M., Nandra , K., et al

    Kocevski , D. D., Brightman , M., Nandra , K., et al. 2015, , 814, 104

    2015

  73. [73]

    Kocevski , D. D. e. a. 2012, , 744, 148

    2012

  74. [74]

    2012, , 746, L22

    Koss , M., Mushotzky , R., Treister , E., et al. 2012, , 746, L22

    2012

  75. [75]

    2011, , 735, L42

    Koss, M., Mushotzky, R., Veilleux, S., et al. 2011, , 735, L42

    2011

  76. [76]

    A., Holland, S

    Krimm, H. A., Holland, S. T., Corbet, R. H. D., et al. 2013, , 209, 14

    2013

  77. [77]

    Lacy , M. e. a. 2020, , 132, 035001

    2020

  78. [78]

    2015, PhD thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York

    Lena , D. 2015, PhD thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology, New York

    2015

  79. [79]

    A., Osterheld , A

    Liedahl , D. A., Osterheld , A. L., & Goldstein , W. H. 1995, , 438, L115

    1995

  80. [80]

    A., & Hao , L

    Liu , X., Shen , Y., Strauss , M. A., & Hao , L. 2011, , 737, 101

    2011

Showing first 80 references.